And to think all we're doing to express our dislike of your leaders is letting you know about it. Oh the horror! But you're getting pissed that we would dare interfere in your election by *talking about it*? What a fucking hypocrite.
Last I knew, I had the right to be pissed about anything I damn well want to be pissed about. And not only that, but I have the right to express that in any way I like. Where do you think I live, France?
When it comes to something as horrible as 9/11, do you really think "why" is important? I don't *care* why, I just want "who" and I want them dead.
There *is* no good reason to have done what they did.
This "blame the victim" attitude is pretty horrible in my opinion. If a woman is raped, you think she should ask "why?" A man is robbed, is it his fault for having too much money? Perhaps the rapist and the robber are just wrong? Maybe? Just a little?
FWIW I haven't heard anybody actually blaming terrorists for 9/11 in some time. Just blaming the U.S.
Thats the saddest thing about it. You have a president who is one of the most powerful of the free world, and the free world hates him.
Tough. It's our vote, not yours. I'm getting really sick of these arrogant Europeans thinking their oppinion in our election even matters. We (by and large) hate the French president, do they care? Are they changing their votes because of it?
The only thing I would like to add here is that a Utilitarian argument must consider *everybody* concerned in a situation. In this case, I feel the unborn child deserves consideration. If born, the mother and possible father have the duty and burdon of raising a child (some would also call it a joy believe it or not). The child gets a life. However, if aborted, the parents gain some personal freedom, whereas the child loses his/her entire life. Not to mention any impact he/she may have had on others whose lives may be touched by the child later in life. Thus a strong utilitarian argument can be made in support of "life" in this case.
This is why I considered your argument "cold." The only person you had considered in your case was the mother of the child. Utilitarianism only considering your "self" is called "selfishness."
That's pretty cold. The infant also requires work (much more than before it was born) to keep alive. Is it not a person too? Is "reliant on somebody else" your definition of "not a real person"?
By "left to its own" I mean that without outside intervention (abortion) the child will continue to grow and eventually be born. This is the natural progression.
What I find interesting about the whole abortion debate is that some people (such as yourself) try to place an arbitrary point in the childs development as "when it becomes a person." None of these ever seems adequate. Placing boundaries on personhood is tricky. Is a man in a coma not a person? They're not sentient, correct?
If we used your definition of sentience as a rule for personhood, then the moment I slip unconscious you could have me killed! The reason I'm not is because I have the *potential* to awake again.:-)
It is my feeling that until we (as a people) can accurately and perfectly define when a person is a person, we best err on the side of life rather than death. I don't know anybody who is trully angered by having been born. And even if they were, it should be *their* decision to die, not the courts or even their mother/father.
No. Those same nutcases declare it illegal for you to kill me. For those of us who are pro-life and not religious (myself), it's not a question of God. It's a question of whether you are killing a living person. I believe you are. Therefore, it is wrong.
Interesting. And the fact that if left to its own the fetus would develop sentience and full person-hood doesn't bother you? The "potential" for sentience and life isn't enough?
I always sorta viewed this as a "preemptive strike" on people. Get 'em before they have a choice so to speak...
Re:Just the name brings back memories
on
Cray XT-3 Ships
·
· Score: 1
During the times of no activity what does it do?
Saves energy running idle? This thing takes a lot of power to keep running, and wasting it on a screensaver probably isn't very smart. I'd be surprised if X windows were even installed on this thing. This isn't your home computer!
But of course, there are already terrorists in the US, too. Better to get rid of those ones first.
Holy shit, you're right! Hey, why didn't we think of that?!?!?! Lets just "get rid" of all the bad guys in the US! What insight! What wisdom! You should be the head of the fucking homeland security office!
Christ, will you stop talking and think for a minute? If you crawl down off your high horse and take a gander at the real world this wouldn't be terribly difficult. You do *not* have the right to do whatever the fuck you want, okay?
Many cities will require permits for certain types of assembly. Theoretically this is to allow the city to prepare for a possibly violent reaction to an unpopular public display (think KKK, Black Panthers), or other mishaps (large amounts of traffic for big marches, police protection for the protesters, etc.).
Realistically this power can be abused. But it can be challenged in court (you know, that thing many people seem to think is just 'broken' and don't bother to take advantage of any more). Otherwise the KKK would probably never be allowed to assemble again.
Has anyone noticed that the elections in Afganistan seem to have been a lot more "democratic" than our own? How about someone comes over here and liberates us for a change?
Well, we have hardly reached the enlightenment of the Afghanistan government. Why don't you go visit there, and stand in the streets shouting support for Israel and let me know just how "free" your fucking speech is there?
I would be curious to hear how you think people would better protest. How else should they be heard?
Petitions, special interest groups, holding 'talks' on subjects in public forums, etc. 'Course they're more difficult to arrange, but I think they're much more effective in the long run. Most people just ignore folks who stand and yell at them.
being cordoned off into a "free speech zone" blocks away from events.
You seem to associate this with Bush... Might I remind you this happened at the DNC in Boston?
On the one hand, I can understand the events folks putting they further away. There was a very real fear that something Bad(TM) may happen during one of the events. They tried for a "best of both worlds" solution: Give the people a place to protest openly, but at a safe distance. They *could* have just denied any protesting all-together. It's a compromise. In a perfect world, they'd be allowed in the friggin' conventions. But I doubt that would work well in the world we live in...
Remember, that just because they couldn't protest *exactly* where they wanted, doesn't mean their right to "free speech" was removed. They were heard, and allowed on the news. If national TV coverage isn't "free speech" I don't know what is.
First off, the "Humpty Dumpty" reference was just that. A reference. Not comparing you at all. Sorry if you took it that way.
Which side of the equation needs to be fixed? Whenever there's a clash between the state and the will of the people, it's always the state which must give. You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to peaceably assemble. Any "violence" (and we're talking about pushing, which probably means the police were trying to push people in one direction, and being a crowd, the people nearest the police are going to push back instead of being crushed) was in response to the action of the state to restrict this crowd.
I find this terribly naive. In these situations there are typically lots of innocent people and property that risk damage. Christ, ever been in a city after a major sports team "wins" a bit game? Violence, cars being tipped over, etc.
You're making the assumption (quite directly actualy) that this was a specific attempt to stop the opponents of GWB from having 'free speech'. I think you read too much into it, and may need to take some tinfoil off your hat. The simpler explaination that the police were trying to control a situation before it got out of hand has much more precedent. When you're a cop, and you're in the middle of a mob, you're *NOT* going to allow a riot simply because you agree with the rioters. Your life is at risk (in a very real way) if you do.
This is the standard of the lesser evil.
"Hey, we coulda shot you with M-16s! Instead we used non-lethal weapons. You should thank us."
"Uh, how about you don't shoot us at all?"
Fine then. How to you propose police stop riots? Wait 'til they start and are in full swing before asking people to politely go home? Or do you just believe in anarchy?
And I'm certain this isn't your standard paintball gun. First, it's almost guaranteed to be more powerful (do you think a cop is going to be happy to trade in his gun for a paintball gun that merely "stings" the assailant?), and I'm also certain the paintballs you used weren't filled with a chemical weapon payload.
Actually, they are. Somebody else posted a link to the company that sells them. ~300-400feet/sec. That's about your standard muzzle velocity of a paintball gun. A "normal" paintball gun has to be fast enough to break a paintball, thus should suffice for this just fine.
I'm curious, exactly what anti-speech actions are you talking about?
And as far as protesting in the streets is concerned, I consider it to be the lowest form of protesting. Holding signs and yelling at the president is quite possibly the least effective means of getting your point made. Yes, I still support it as legal, but such situations are often dangerous, and rarely lead to any good...
Nit pick: Ad Hominem? Okay, my argument may have been fallacious, but couldn't you have found a better fallacy?
Your wonderful knee-jerk reaction to a crowd being broken up by police is just over-reacting. Think about the situation a bit eh? 500 people with how many cops in the area? About half the crowd on either side, bitterly opposed to each other. And the President is staying in town. You think "Oh, everyone is going to just be nice and speak their political oppinions in well-mannered ways?"
This was a bloody poweder keg if you ask me. And I doubt either side had permits to assemble (it would be seriously stupid to give both parties permits within such proximity).
The only thing that sounds rather suspect is that we only hear about Kerry supporters being attacked. But they would be the angry ones, so that may jive. It's not like there's 4 students lying dead in the street right now. Lets keep a little perspective. I've been shot with paintballs (paid for the pleasure too), and while they do hurt, I'm still able to walk away.
Actually, there are large differences with prior "crowd dispersal" techniques. The police in recent times have invested lots of money and time into 'less than leathal' weapons for dealing with crowds. Sure, a few people may get some welts (I've paintballed myself and they can sting), but far from the days of students being clubbed, or pushed with high-pressure hoses.
500 or so people from strongly opposing camps yelling at each other with the cops in the middle and the President in town staying at the hotel. The crowd was dispersed, and nobody was seriously injured. Sounds like a small success to me (though I don't actually know enough to know whether the force was warrented or not - but things could have been *much* worse).
Probably the best reaction from the police that could have been made was to instead grab and arrest the offending few and allow the rest to protest peacefully.
That often doesn't happen though. While you're arresting those few, the people around them sometimes get angry and begin to resist the arresting.
Anyone at the protest, who would have seen the people pushing their luck, probably would have supported the arrests and spread the word throughout.
Again, very naive IMHO. Police tactics are setup the way they are for a reason. They used pepper to avoid injuring anybody (in the past all they had was guns and hoses). The mob was broken up, and nobody was seriously hurt. If this is fascism, it's changed over the last 100 years (reply not to you here, but others who are way over-reacting)
It is time that police organizations around the country start to re-think the idea of crowd control. From the RNC to this situation, we have too much policing and not enough protesting.
(don't forget the DNC too). There are people who make a living trying to figure out the solution to this problem. You think it's an easy one? 500 people with maybe 20 cops to control them? It would be nice if we could trust the protesters to be 'nice' and to not destroy things. History shows they are prone to do otherwise though. Mobs get angry, and *very* out of control. If it gets out of control the police are blamed, if they stop it early the police are blamed. If you're so friggin' smart, what's your solution?
Slashdot Mirror
And to think all we're doing to express our dislike of your leaders is letting you know about it. Oh the horror! But you're getting pissed that we would dare interfere in your election by *talking about it*? What a fucking hypocrite.
Last I knew, I had the right to be pissed about anything I damn well want to be pissed about. And not only that, but I have the right to express that in any way I like. Where do you think I live, France?
When it comes to something as horrible as 9/11, do you really think "why" is important? I don't *care* why, I just want "who" and I want them dead.
There *is* no good reason to have done what they did.
This "blame the victim" attitude is pretty horrible in my opinion. If a woman is raped, you think she should ask "why?" A man is robbed, is it his fault for having too much money? Perhaps the rapist and the robber are just wrong? Maybe? Just a little?
FWIW I haven't heard anybody actually blaming terrorists for 9/11 in some time. Just blaming the U.S.
Thats the saddest thing about it. You have a president who is one of the most powerful of the free world, and the free world hates him.
Tough. It's our vote, not yours. I'm getting really sick of these arrogant Europeans thinking their oppinion in our election even matters. We (by and large) hate the French president, do they care? Are they changing their votes because of it?
The only thing I would like to add here is that a Utilitarian argument must consider *everybody* concerned in a situation. In this case, I feel the unborn child deserves consideration. If born, the mother and possible father have the duty and burdon of raising a child (some would also call it a joy believe it or not). The child gets a life. However, if aborted, the parents gain some personal freedom, whereas the child loses his/her entire life. Not to mention any impact he/she may have had on others whose lives may be touched by the child later in life. Thus a strong utilitarian argument can be made in support of "life" in this case.
This is why I considered your argument "cold." The only person you had considered in your case was the mother of the child. Utilitarianism only considering your "self" is called "selfishness."
That's pretty cold. The infant also requires work (much more than before it was born) to keep alive. Is it not a person too? Is "reliant on somebody else" your definition of "not a real person"?
:-)
By "left to its own" I mean that without outside intervention (abortion) the child will continue to grow and eventually be born. This is the natural progression.
What I find interesting about the whole abortion debate is that some people (such as yourself) try to place an arbitrary point in the childs development as "when it becomes a person." None of these ever seems adequate. Placing boundaries on personhood is tricky. Is a man in a coma not a person? They're not sentient, correct?
If we used your definition of sentience as a rule for personhood, then the moment I slip unconscious you could have me killed! The reason I'm not is because I have the *potential* to awake again.
It is my feeling that until we (as a people) can accurately and perfectly define when a person is a person, we best err on the side of life rather than death. I don't know anybody who is trully angered by having been born. And even if they were, it should be *their* decision to die, not the courts or even their mother/father.
No. Those same nutcases declare it illegal for you to kill me. For those of us who are pro-life and not religious (myself), it's not a question of God. It's a question of whether you are killing a living person. I believe you are. Therefore, it is wrong.
Interesting. And the fact that if left to its own the fetus would develop sentience and full person-hood doesn't bother you? The "potential" for sentience and life isn't enough?
I always sorta viewed this as a "preemptive strike" on people. Get 'em before they have a choice so to speak...
And you think you know the *exact* moment a person is sentient? You want the government making that decision?
WILL SOMBODY PLEASE REALIZE THIS WAS POSTED IN THE "FUNNY" TOPIC????
/. for being biased and missing the joke.
Christ. What's that sound? Oh, that's a million liberals flaming
It's funny... Laugh.
During the times of no activity what does it do?
Saves energy running idle? This thing takes a lot of power to keep running, and wasting it on a screensaver probably isn't very smart. I'd be surprised if X windows were even installed on this thing. This isn't your home computer!
I was *going* to respond to the parent, but I don't think I could top your post. :-)
But of course, there are already terrorists in the US, too. Better to get rid of those ones first.
Holy shit, you're right! Hey, why didn't we think of that?!?!?! Lets just "get rid" of all the bad guys in the US! What insight! What wisdom! You should be the head of the fucking homeland security office!
And a hush comes over the crowd.
Oh, wait. That's just because nobody cares...
That's true of all databases (not just MySQL). Inserting to a table that has an index requires a cost to index the new data.
Not all Windows machines support remote desktop. Besides, it's not what the user asked for.
Christ, will you stop talking and think for a minute? If you crawl down off your high horse and take a gander at the real world this wouldn't be terribly difficult. You do *not* have the right to do whatever the fuck you want, okay?
Many cities will require permits for certain types of assembly. Theoretically this is to allow the city to prepare for a possibly violent reaction to an unpopular public display (think KKK, Black Panthers), or other mishaps (large amounts of traffic for big marches, police protection for the protesters, etc.).
Realistically this power can be abused. But it can be challenged in court (you know, that thing many people seem to think is just 'broken' and don't bother to take advantage of any more). Otherwise the KKK would probably never be allowed to assemble again.
Has anyone noticed that the elections in Afganistan seem to have been a lot more "democratic" than our own? How about someone comes over here and liberates us for a change?
Well, we have hardly reached the enlightenment of the Afghanistan government. Why don't you go visit there, and stand in the streets shouting support for Israel and let me know just how "free" your fucking speech is there?
I would be curious to hear how you think people would better protest. How else should they be heard?
Petitions, special interest groups, holding 'talks' on subjects in public forums, etc. 'Course they're more difficult to arrange, but I think they're much more effective in the long run. Most people just ignore folks who stand and yell at them.
being cordoned off into a "free speech zone" blocks away from events.
You seem to associate this with Bush... Might I remind you this happened at the DNC in Boston?
On the one hand, I can understand the events folks putting they further away. There was a very real fear that something Bad(TM) may happen during one of the events. They tried for a "best of both worlds" solution: Give the people a place to protest openly, but at a safe distance. They *could* have just denied any protesting all-together. It's a compromise. In a perfect world, they'd be allowed in the friggin' conventions. But I doubt that would work well in the world we live in...
Remember, that just because they couldn't protest *exactly* where they wanted, doesn't mean their right to "free speech" was removed. They were heard, and allowed on the news. If national TV coverage isn't "free speech" I don't know what is.
First off, the "Humpty Dumpty" reference was just that. A reference. Not comparing you at all. Sorry if you took it that way.
Which side of the equation needs to be fixed? Whenever there's a clash between the state and the will of the people, it's always the state which must give. You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to peaceably assemble. Any "violence" (and we're talking about pushing, which probably means the police were trying to push people in one direction, and being a crowd, the people nearest the police are going to push back instead of being crushed) was in response to the action of the state to restrict this crowd.
I find this terribly naive. In these situations there are typically lots of innocent people and property that risk damage. Christ, ever been in a city after a major sports team "wins" a bit game? Violence, cars being tipped over, etc.
You're making the assumption (quite directly actualy) that this was a specific attempt to stop the opponents of GWB from having 'free speech'. I think you read too much into it, and may need to take some tinfoil off your hat. The simpler explaination that the police were trying to control a situation before it got out of hand has much more precedent. When you're a cop, and you're in the middle of a mob, you're *NOT* going to allow a riot simply because you agree with the rioters. Your life is at risk (in a very real way) if you do.
This is the standard of the lesser evil. "Hey, we coulda shot you with M-16s! Instead we used non-lethal weapons. You should thank us." "Uh, how about you don't shoot us at all?"
Fine then. How to you propose police stop riots? Wait 'til they start and are in full swing before asking people to politely go home? Or do you just believe in anarchy?
And I'm certain this isn't your standard paintball gun. First, it's almost guaranteed to be more powerful (do you think a cop is going to be happy to trade in his gun for a paintball gun that merely "stings" the assailant?), and I'm also certain the paintballs you used weren't filled with a chemical weapon payload.
Actually, they are. Somebody else posted a link to the company that sells them. ~300-400feet/sec. That's about your standard muzzle velocity of a paintball gun. A "normal" paintball gun has to be fast enough to break a paintball, thus should suffice for this just fine.
I don't think it's a question of "deserves" or not. People have the right to peacably assemble. Whether I think they're "right" or not.
I'm curious, exactly what anti-speech actions are you talking about?
And as far as protesting in the streets is concerned, I consider it to be the lowest form of protesting. Holding signs and yelling at the president is quite possibly the least effective means of getting your point made. Yes, I still support it as legal, but such situations are often dangerous, and rarely lead to any good...
Nit pick: Ad Hominem? Okay, my argument may have been fallacious, but couldn't you have found a better fallacy?
Your wonderful knee-jerk reaction to a crowd being broken up by police is just over-reacting. Think about the situation a bit eh? 500 people with how many cops in the area? About half the crowd on either side, bitterly opposed to each other. And the President is staying in town. You think "Oh, everyone is going to just be nice and speak their political oppinions in well-mannered ways?"
This was a bloody poweder keg if you ask me. And I doubt either side had permits to assemble (it would be seriously stupid to give both parties permits within such proximity).
The only thing that sounds rather suspect is that we only hear about Kerry supporters being attacked. But they would be the angry ones, so that may jive. It's not like there's 4 students lying dead in the street right now. Lets keep a little perspective. I've been shot with paintballs (paid for the pleasure too), and while they do hurt, I'm still able to walk away.
Actually, there are large differences with prior "crowd dispersal" techniques. The police in recent times have invested lots of money and time into 'less than leathal' weapons for dealing with crowds. Sure, a few people may get some welts (I've paintballed myself and they can sting), but far from the days of students being clubbed, or pushed with high-pressure hoses.
500 or so people from strongly opposing camps yelling at each other with the cops in the middle and the President in town staying at the hotel. The crowd was dispersed, and nobody was seriously injured. Sounds like a small success to me (though I don't actually know enough to know whether the force was warrented or not - but things could have been *much* worse).
Probably the best reaction from the police that could have been made was to instead grab and arrest the offending few and allow the rest to protest peacefully.
That often doesn't happen though. While you're arresting those few, the people around them sometimes get angry and begin to resist the arresting.
Anyone at the protest, who would have seen the people pushing their luck, probably would have supported the arrests and spread the word throughout.
Again, very naive IMHO. Police tactics are setup the way they are for a reason. They used pepper to avoid injuring anybody (in the past all they had was guns and hoses). The mob was broken up, and nobody was seriously hurt. If this is fascism, it's changed over the last 100 years (reply not to you here, but others who are way over-reacting)
It is time that police organizations around the country start to re-think the idea of crowd control. From the RNC to this situation, we have too much policing and not enough protesting.
(don't forget the DNC too). There are people who make a living trying to figure out the solution to this problem. You think it's an easy one? 500 people with maybe 20 cops to control them? It would be nice if we could trust the protesters to be 'nice' and to not destroy things. History shows they are prone to do otherwise though. Mobs get angry, and *very* out of control. If it gets out of control the police are blamed, if they stop it early the police are blamed. If you're so friggin' smart, what's your solution?
Because it's much better when the police fire with real bullets..